Comments on: Guestview: Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%e2%80%9cjustify%e2%80%9d-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/
Religion, faith and ethicsTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:27:16 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.3By: StinkyLiberalshttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%e2%80%9cjustify%e2%80%9d-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/comment-page-1/#comment-27862
Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:27:36 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=18214#comment-27862Ha! A priest from good ol’ evil incarnate San Francisco is defending this apostate pope’s comments. Good Lord people, look and open your eyes! This pope is not a real pope but is rather a puppet of the New World Order. The end really is near. It will happen in your lifetime. But your faith….your belief is soooo shaky and unstable. You’ll believe science over your God. God help you all. I truly pray that he will open many of your eyes to the truth.
]]>By: johnfusedhttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%e2%80%9cjustify%e2%80%9d-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/comment-page-1/#comment-27841
Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:55:40 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=18214#comment-27841“Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast.”

The principle function of padded pipes is neither to prevent heat loss in _hot_ water nor to prevent heat loss in _flowing_ water. The principle function of padded pipes is to prevent heat loss in cold static water; i.e. to prevent the water (cold) sitting (not flowing*) in the pipe from FREEZING. Why? Because in freezing it will stop flowing and expand in volume; in expanding it will try to expand the pipe, cracking it; when later on in time the temperature rises, the solid water will revert to its liquid state and flow out of the pipe, which will not shrink back to its previous size. Unlike a condom.

But is was very funny nevertheless.

* When the tap is on and hence the water is flowing, it is very unlikely to freeze.

]]>By: jfpfeganhttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%e2%80%9cjustify%e2%80%9d-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/comment-page-1/#comment-27807
Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:59:48 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=18214#comment-27807rjgrace: No, Fr. Fessio’s example does NOT assume that sex outside of marriage and mugging are morally equivalent. It simply assumes that they’re both wrong (there are degrees of moral rightness and wrongness, you will admit?). There is not question-begging argument going on here. Even so, yes, the Church’s position is controversial–but so is the contradictory. That’s the nature of controversies. They’re controversial. And it’s hard to find common ground on this one. If you think the burden of proof is on the Pope and Fr. Fessio, I think you need to make the case why that is so…. As for me, I don’t see it that way, and in any case the Catholic Church is not trying to police to use of condoms!
]]>By: rjgracehttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%e2%80%9cjustify%e2%80%9d-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/comment-page-1/#comment-27772
Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:36:31 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=18214#comment-27772Fr. Fessio said:

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said. Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging. The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Father, I’m not sure this example works. The underlying assumption here is that mugging is equivalent to sexual activity exercised apart from the goal of reproduction. That is exactly what is controverted, therefore you’re begging the question, “Is it ever morally acceptable to use condoms?” Granted, there are some who would see mugging and sex outside of marriage/reproduction as morally equivalent… but to assume so misses the point on why the reaction to what the pope said is so perplexing to the world at large.